Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    Of course they should.  There are probably a few players who were butchers in the field but made the Hall just because they played before the DH or played in the NL. They may have been career DHs if situational and time factors were different.  We don't dismiss them just because they sucked in the field.  
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    I'm in the affirmative on Edgar and he should be the first DH enshrined...

    As for those who oppose the concept of DH'es being worthy. If you are old enough to have watched the game before the DH position was implemented and or have played the game at the select level in your youth or played HS ball...You'll be very familar with this statement.

    If you hit, you'll play...

    Had Edgar not played in the AL during the DH era and instead broke in during the early sixties...trust me he would have found himeself wearing a first baseman mitt. Ditto Big Papi. Neither of whom would ever have been a gold glover...however due to thier bats, trust me, they'd have been in the lineup everyday. If Edgar posted similar numbers while playing 1B, talk of his not being hall of fame worthy would be moot. There was no RH hitter in the AL or in all of baseball during his peak years that was better hitter then he...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    In Response to Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?:
    [QUOTE]No. DH'ers are not baseball players.
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]

    So what your saying is bench players are not baseball players ? Ortiz can also play first base.Players make the HOF with offensive stats also.People pay good money to see baseballs best payers in the game and Ortiz just happens to be one. Any way you try to twist this will prove you so wrong.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    Absolutely.  DH is a position.  They're specialists, but as others have noted, so are closers.  David Ortiz has won a lot of baseball games with the stick.  If there was no DH position, he would be playing first base for someone.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from seannybboi. Show seannybboi's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    In Response to Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?:
    [QUOTE]No. DH'ers are not baseball players.
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]

    So AL teams are playing 8 against 8?

    DH is the, most of the time, most important offensive contributor in the game. 
    Let's say Pujols were career DH and only looking at his offensive numbers, doesn't he belong in HOF regardlessly? You don't necessarily have to play the field to contribute to the team. 
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    In Response to Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?:
    [QUOTE]I'm in the affirmative on Edgar and he should be the first DH enshrined... As for those who oppose the concept of DH'es being worthy. If you are old enough to have watched the game before the DH position was implemented and or have played the game at the select level in your youth or played HS ball...You'll be very familar with this statement. If you hit, you'll play... Had Edgar not played in the AL during the DH era and instead broke in during the early sixties...trust me he would have found himeself wearing a first baseman mitt. Ditto Big Papi. Neither of whom would ever have been a gold glover...however due to thier bats, trust me, they'd have been in the lineup everyday. If Edgar posted similar numbers while playing 1B, talk of his not being hall of fame worthy would be moot. There was no RH hitter in the AL or in all of baseball during his peak years that was better hitter then he...
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]

    Exactly.  People act like DHs can't field at all.  Most can and are far better at it than anyone writing here.  They would be even better at it if they did it more often.  They too, were the best players on their teams growing up.  Almost all these guys were.

    Papi has played a passable first base when called upon to do so (remember his throw in the 04 Series to nab Suppan at 3rd) especially when he was younger.  He's not a gold glover, but few are (like Youkilis and Gonzalez).      
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from charliedarling. Show charliedarling's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    The DH rule was one of the absolute best changes in baseball since i started watching in 1958.

    So, sure DHs should be eligible for the Hall of Fame.  DHing has been around for almost 40 years, and that is enough time to make measurable contributions to the game.

    The DH is in EVERY league except the National League!  Why should the majority of the leagues have to switch to the theory of the minority league?  And, why should quality hitters like Martinez and Ortiz not be considered for the Hall of Fame if their offensive numbers match up.

    So what if the DH cannot field?  There are certainly guys who are in the Hall who were poor to even terrible fielders.  AND, when was the last time you bought a ticket to watch a pitcher hit?  When was the last time you stayed glued to your seat to watch a pitcher sacrifice bunt?

    Certainly watching Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz hit is better than watching any pitcher strike out or even sacrifice bunt.

    Oh, I almost forgot to ask.  How exciting is the "double switch" as a spectator?  Ever get excited enough to stand and cheer the manager for making the double switch late in the game?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    In Response to Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?:
    [QUOTE]If they're names are Edgar Martinez yes. I'll save discussion of Big Papi until he retires.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]
    Yup. Martinez definitely. As for Papi, jury still out.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kamdog. Show Kamdog's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    DHs only play part of the game, but, if they play that part head and shoulders above others, and make a huge impact on their team and the league, they should be considered.

    (I am not weighing in on Edgar Martinez).

    Just like a closer, a DH needs to be really superior in order to make up the strike against him for not playing a full baseball position.  But, there are people in those positions who are making, and have made, such an impact that they deserve the HOF.

    Mariano is one of those closers who have made a huge impact in the league, and IMO, is probably the best there ever was, so he should go in. Ortiz is one of those DHs who make other teams scramble.  DO has to overcome the steroid thing, and has to keep up production so he gets the gaudy numbers, but, if he does, he deserves to be in. DO's impact has been huge, in game after game, year after year, so, yeah, I think it makes up for him not fielding. You can bet if he were in the NL, he would be a position player, and probably have even better hitting numbers.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    In Response to Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers? :   Pitchers have what are called baseball gloves.  They need them to catch as well as throw baseballs.  In addition to facing hitters, they are required to field bunts, balls hit up the middle and throw to various bases depending on the situation.  That makes them baseball players and in the NL they actually have bats and have to face their opposing "position player."  A lot of major league pitchers played shortstop and were often their team's best hitters when they young.  They are typically very good athletes.  DH's are typically not. 
    Posted by WilcyMoore[/QUOTE]

    Since DH's are in the American League, who cares if NL pitchers bat. AL pitchers DON'T bat, just like DH's don't play the field. Duh ... pitchers field just like position players not only catch the ball, they throw it to a base. Just like hitters swing the bat and RUN the bases.

    Yes, many pitchers were the best athlete in high school, but you're painting with a broad brush. I doubt Josh Beckett was the best athlete on his teams. And even if they were great hitters in high school, most still can't hit in the majors. 

    And the DH not being good athletes is an even broader brush. First, there aren't many who have been DH-only players. Ortiz is big but it doesn't mean he's not athletic. Other DH's where quite athletic in their younger days and many were even excellent fielders -- Jim Thome comes to mind. And many could play the field and perform much better in the field than pitchers at the plate.

    And if we're really going their about being half a player -- then today's closers shouldn't get a sniff at the HoF. They rarely pitch more than an inning. Will play in less than half the games in a season and never bat, even in the NL.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harv53. Show harv53's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    I never thought closers should be in the HOF. But, most of the HOF inductees get in because of offense, only when the offensive numbers are questionable is the defense considered (Bill Mazeroski).

    The DH rule is terrible for baseball. If there were no DH, Papi would surely be in the line-up at 1B for someone. He's not a bad 1B, it's just that there are others better, and as long as the DH exists better defensive players will play the field.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    Ortiz has proven to be a great fit in Boston, but that don't make him a candidate for the HOF.  Yes, he can in fact play first base and no doubt do it better than the infamous Marvelous Marv Throneberry of the early Mets.  But the simple fact is that he doesn't play 1B except in rare circumstances.  Meanwhile the likes of Youk and AGon get to go out there, catch those short hop throws, field, throw guys out, etc and bear up under the strain of many, many seemingly endless 4 hour Sox games while Big Papi sits cooly in the dugout watching the action.  I give him credit for not being part of the beer and chicken crowd, but that ain't a lot of credit. 

    All due respect to Ted Williams, who once said that the hardest skill in all of sports was/is hitting a round ball with a round bat squarely, I think the toughest skill in MLB is pitching.  How else do you explain that, while you only need one pitcher in a game, the average MLB team carries 12 guys to cover that one position?  The reality is that pitching is hard as heck. You not only have to throw that ball nearly as hard as you can, but from 60 feet (my guess at the actual release point vice the mound) you need to have pinpoint accuracy and mastery of at least two and preferably three or four different pitches. The best pitchers make over $20M a year and only pitch every 5th day for a reason--it is the toughest skill in MLB, throwing 100 to 120 pitches to batters with all the advantages. 

    Hitters vice fielders get to play and get the big salaries because ever since the dead ball era ended, somewhere around the the rise of Babe Ruth with the Yankees, MLB's policy has been to increase scoring in order to get more fannies in seats and viewers on TV.  The Sox string of 9 years or whatever of sold out games has coincided with the Sox being at or near the top every year in scoring and hitting.  Not so the Sox pitching, which during the sold out era was at the top exactly one time, 2007.

    And let's not forget that the standards for successful hitting are vastly lower than for successful fielding.  In his entire career Ellsbury has made just two errors, and it is almost not worth mentioning.  Imagine if he had only made two outs in his career at the plate.  And don't forget that fielding percentage is increasingly under attack and maybe being replaced by a players range.  These days people almost don't care whether you field the ball cleanly as long as you get your glove on it after moving quickly and a long distance. 

    Hitters meanwhile only need to make good contact three out of ten times to be considered highly competent and nobody cares what direction they hit it or whether they have "range" with their bats.  In fact, the tendency by MLB umpires is to make the strike zone ever smaller to accomodate the hitters.  In another decade or two, it could well be the belt buckle is the top and bottom of the zone, which will be about 5 inches wide. 

    Ortiz is hands down the best DH in the AL and is paid $15M per year, which most of us think is a tad too much. Why? Because he is a DH and never, ever, has to bear the heat of the day or night. I don't care if he is an olympic level decathlete if he never has to demonstrate that out on the field. 

    The DH is a compromise to put fannies in seats, and it has definitely succeeded. But it is still a compromise.  I personally like it a lot because the Sox have Ortiz.  But that doesn't mean I want any of those guys in the HOF. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChronicNYY13. Show ChronicNYY13's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    Edgar, yes, Ortiz, not yet.  Just like any other player they have to put up the numbers and then yes, they are in.  They are at a disadvantage because we cannot consider their defensive ability as an add on, which means they need to be a incredible hitter to make up for it.  Edgar was that.  
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mjnmjn. Show mjnmjn's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    This is the list of the first base men currently in the Hall of Fame:

    First BasemenBOLD Indicates Statistical Leader For HOF First Basemen
    NameAVGOBPSLGHITSHRRBIRUNSSB
    Cap Anson (bio).329.395.4462,995971,8791,719247
    Jake Beckley.308.361.4352,930861,5751,600315
    Jim Bottomley.310.369.5002,3132191,4221,17758
    Dan Brouthers.342.423.5192,2961061,2961,523256
    Orlando Cepeda.297.353.4992,3513791,3651,131142
    Frank Chance.296.394.3941,27320596797401
    Roger Connor.317.397.4862,4671381,3221,620244
    Jimmie Foxx.325.428.6092,6465341,9221,75187
    Lou Gehrig.340.447.6322,7214931,9951,888102
    Hank Greenberg.313.412.6051,6283311,2761,05158
    George Kelly.297.342.4521,7781481,02081965
    Harmon Killebrew.256.379.5092,0865731,5841,28319
    Willie McCovey.270.377.5152,2115211,5551,22926
    Johnny Mize.312.397.5622,0113591,3371,11828
    Eddie Murray.287.359.4763,2555041,9171,627110
    Tony Perez.279.344.4632,7323791,6521,27249
    George Sisler.340.379.4682,8121021,1751,284375
    Bill Terry.341.393.5062,1931541,0781,12056
    NameAVGOBPSLGHITSHRRBIRUNSSB
    Hall of Fame First Basemen

    Their Fielding % at 1st are as follows:
    Cap Anson .974
    Jake Beckley .981
    Jim Bottomly .989
    Dan Brouthers .971
    Orlando Cepeda .990
    Frank Chance .987
    Roger Connor .978
    Jimmie foxx .992
    Lou Gehrig .991
    Hank Greenberg .991
    George Kelly .992
    Harmon Killebrew .992
    Willie Mc Covey .987
    Johnny Mize .992
    Eddie Murray .993
    Tony Perez .992
    George sisler .989
    Bill Terry .992

    These are David Ortiz's Averages
    B Avg .285, OBP .379, SLG .546, Hits 1807, HR 385, RBI 1292, Runs 1084, and SB 11.

    Fielding % is .989

    Papi's fielding % is ahead of 7 of the 17 HOF 1st base men. In addition he is tied with George Sisler, so he is basically in the middle of the pack of HOF 1st base men from a fielding perspective. His weakness is hitting. His numbers do not live up to the lifetime avgs. of the players on the list. Given Papi has at least 2 more years of service, he will be hard pressed to lift himself up to their performance level, but it is possible. However, if you want to say his hitting is less than sufficient for HOF consideration, so be it, but fielding should have no place in the argument. He has played 1st whenever asked, his assigned position is DH. You can't say that Ted Williams did not deserve to be in the HOF because he had a small sample at third base, he just wasn't asked to play there.

    www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofst1b.shtml

    www.baseball-reference.com
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from WilcyMoore. Show WilcyMoore's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    In Response to Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?:
    [QUOTE]typically, you have your head up your derriere. Don Baylor kept himself in superior shape and was a DH. Edgar outstanding physical shape-DH. Just because you can't accept something that has been around close to 40 years, just means you are tremendously biased against DHs. And there are many pitchers who just pitched and didn't play shortstop, and there are many chubby guys who played regular positions. DH is used a variety of different ways by different clubs. Deal with it.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]  Edgar Martinez has been eligible for the Hall of Fame since the 2010 season.  Voters have yet to give him even 37% or half of the votes (75%) required for induction.  He has gotten about 1/3rd of the votes in each season (2010, 2011 and 2012) he has been on the ballot. 

    Do you seriously believe that something will change that will more than double the number of votes he has averaged in his first three years of eligibility while his career is fresh in the minds of the voters?  There are a lot of reasons why baseball writers are not inclined to give an accomplished DH their vote which I suppose must mean that they have their collective heads up their derrieres.  In the words of the humorist "How empty is theory in the presence of fact?"  Deal with it!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    You guys defending the DH keep ignoring my basic point.  Please don't tell me they were in great shape or once fielded adequately.  Tell me how many games they played in which they went out to the field every single inning to man a fielding position instead of sitting in the dugout. 

    I delighted to see that the HOF voters appear to agree with me and not you. 
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hetchinspete. Show Hetchinspete's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    In Response to Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?:
    [QUOTE]No. DH'ers are not baseball players.
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]

    Funny, they are on the same field as ballplayers and in the same uniforms. Must be my imagination or something. 
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    In Response to Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?:
    [QUOTE]You guys defending the DH keep ignoring my basic point.  Please don't tell me they were in great shape or once fielded adequately.  Tell me how many games they played in which they went out to the field every single inning to man a fielding position instead of sitting in the dugout.  I delighted to see that the HOF voters appear to agree with me and not you. 
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]

    how do you penalize a player for a position that was developed 40 years ago? The manager places you at DH often for many different reasons. What does catching a baseball or playing 1b over DH have to do with anything. Just because the NL would rather you all watch a pitcher flail out 3 pitches or drop a sac bunt with 2 strikes (fouls it off often) doesn't make it right. Maybe the DH was a good thing. But you take this way too traditional view of a sport that just joined the NHL/NBA in making sure you have more teams dilute the postseason. Guess what, no Ortiz, no WS titles. End of story. Also, no DH cost the Sox in 86 when Baylor had to sit. The guy was their best clutch hitter all regular season.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    I'm putting Edgar in, i'm putting Ortiz in, i'm putting Harold Baines in too. I will advocate the DH Party.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tomnev. Show tomnev's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    In Response to Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?:
    [QUOTE]You guys defending the DH keep ignoring my basic point.  Please don't tell me they were in great shape or once fielded adequately.  Tell me how many games they played in which they went out to the field every single inning to man a fielding position instead of sitting in the dugout.  I delighted to see that the HOF voters appear to agree with me and not you. 
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]
    The question should be , is if the DH was not available, would the Edgar Martinez's offensive output been enough that the Mariners would have played him at 1B.....without a doubt....and if that was the case, no matter how average he had been in the field....would the offensive numbers he put up be enough to make him Hall Worthy....considering that Edgar has 300+ HRS, 1200+ RBIs and over a .300 BA and of the other guys who have done that.....15 are in the Hall.....4 are Active and probably Hall bound(Steroids aside).....AROD, CHipper, Pujols, and Helton....6 more are inactive, Manny, Frank Thomas, Bagwell, Piazza, Larry Walker and Moises Alou....of those 6(again Roids aside)....other than Alou, I guarantee they are getting in the Hall or someone is arguing hard they should be......so since it wasnt Edgars fault the option of DH was there and he didnt get to play an Average 1B or Weak 3B.....why should he not be considered? 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Should Designated Hitters Be Hall Of Famers?

    Kickers win Super Bowls, keep seasons alive, lose playoff games (see Ravens), cost many players a ton of postseason cash, allow others a ton of cash. Kickers are awesome. So are DHs
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share